Politics: Who Changed History Most in the Past Half Year?

by HNN Staff

JEFFORDS AND O'CONNOR

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

Because ... She was the swing vote in Bush v. Gore, giving us ... Bush...the end of Kyoto...the end of the ABM Treaty (maybe)...higher levels of arsenic in water (may be reversed)...1300 new power plants (maybe)....a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut (that may cost 2 trillion over the next ten years and 4 trillion if extended to the next twenty years)...Secretary of Labor Linda Chavez (for about a week)...a ban on federal funds to overseas groups that promote abortion...the abrogation of talks with North Korea...the resumption of talks with North Korea...the end of salmonella testing of meat used in school lunches...the resumption of such testing...cuts in the COPS program...dramatic increases in the budget of the National Institutes of Health...a flat promise to defend Taiwan.

JAMES JEFFORDS

Because ... He was the swing vote in the Republican Senate giving us ... a Democratic Senate...Tom Daschle instead of Trent Lott as majority leader...Patrick Leahy instead of Orrin Hatch as head of the judiciary committee...Joseph Biden instead of Jesse Helms at foreign relations...Harry Reid instead of Robert Smith at environment and public works...and Robert Byrd instead of Strom Thurmond as president pro tem.

Maybe there has been another era when the vote of two people changed the course of U.S. history as dramatically over as brief a period of time, but we do not know of any. If you do, please let us know. We'll be publishing your comments next week!

If you want to tell us about close calls where just one person's decision changed history, please do so.

More Comments:

staff -
6/22/2001

Readers should know that we do not promise to be free of bias. In fact, we want articles that take a strong point of view. Our promise is to publish a wide variety of views. The Editor.

Curt Haring -
6/22/2001

What presumption. Does History begin and end in America? Jeffords is a
pipsqueak turncoat whos craven self serving action isn't a significant
historical event, unless your view of history is severely constricted. How
you can elevate him to the status of an important figure in history is
mystifying.

It is interesting to notice how the descriptions that follow each nominee
are so very different. You clearly have a leftist bias, notwithstanding
your self promoting statements of neutrality and historical integrity.
While the effects of O'Connor's vote are clearly implied to be mostly
negative, the effects of Jefford's "vote" are described with no inferences
or comments. This type of nonsense is certainly NOT historical integrity,
but is simply a thinly disguised representation of shoddy and biased
journalism that is rampant today.

If you want to be a leftist mouthpiece on the internet, have the courage to
say so up front.

Curt Haring

Stacy Haigney -
6/18/2001

Calling O'Connor the swing vote misleadingly implies that she might have voted
for Gore. It never occured to her to do so. The only question in her mind was
which unprincipled pseudo-rationale to use in ruling for Bush.
Stacy Haigney